Talk:Repo Man (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I'm not so sure that the last 3 points unde the tagline section are actually taglines. The last two sound more like quotes, and the third last one sounds like the plot of the film. trumad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.30.10 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

removed trivia and popular culture items

• References to "plates", "shrimp", or "plate of shrimp" throughout. One example is the alien picture owned by Leila, which is actually two water-filled condoms with little grass skirts attached, arranged to resemble a plate of shrimp.
• In the hospital scene, a "Dr. Benway" and a "Mr. Lee" are paged. Both are characters from novels by William S. Burroughs.
• "Dioretix", a pun on L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics and the term diuretic.
• The dangerous glow emitted from the trunk of the Chevy Malibu may be a homage to the bright, glowing contents of the mysterious box in the 1955 film Kiss Me Deadly directed by Robert Aldrich. A similar device can be seen in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.
• Food and beverages throughout the movie appear in generic white containers with blue-lettered labels reading among others, "Beer", "Drink", "Dry Gin" and "Food (Meat Flavored)". The design was based on "Plain Wrap" generic products, which were sold by Los Angeles-based Ralph's supermarkets starting in 1978.
• Pine-scented car deodorizers shaped like evergreen trees are placed in most cars. These items were one of the few sponsored items in this movie and hundreds of these deodorizers were donated to the filmmakers for this movie, without scent. Miller, the mechanic-philosopher, also noted the pervasive presence of the scented pine tree deodorizers in repossessed cars, telling Otto, "You'll find one in every car. You'll see." (One even appears on a policeman's motorcycle.)
• Four of the "repo men" of Helping Hand are named after popular beers or allude to beer: Bud (from "Budweiser"), Oly (from "Olympia"), Lite and Miller.
• Quite a few Los Angeles-based punk rock musicians cast in roles large and small include: Dick Rude and Keith Morris (with his band, The Circle Jerks) as well as The Untouchables (as the scooter guys). Also cast is Los Angeles club maven, Rodney Bingenheimer (aka "Rodney on the ROQ") in a cameo appearance as a club owner. Bingenheimer's name is spelled "Benegenheimer" in the credits. The Circle Jerks perform as a very poor lounge act (the source of Otto's lament, "I can't believe I used to like these guys!") as they grind out a slow, "swinging" lounge version of the normally raucous When the Shit Hits the Fan. The lounge act was intended as a mockery of fellow Los Angeles band Wall of Voodoo, which was popular at the time. Circle Jerks bassist Zander Schloss is seen in an acting role as a friend of Otto's who works with him at the supermarket.
• Posters for "Harry Pace for City Council" in the background throughout the film. Alex Cox has said that "Harry Pace" was an indirect reference to "happy face." Leila (played by Olivia Barash) wears happy face pins. Otto is wearing a smiley face pin when he spots the Chevy Malibu.
• The scene when Agent Rogersz and Leila torture Otto appears to be a reference to the Milgram experiment.
• As Bud and Otto pursue repossession opportunities throughout the seedier parts of Los Angeles (at all hours of the day and night), their path seems to continually follow or intersect with that of Otto's punk friends. On more than one occasion, Bud and Otto will visit a convenience store just after (or during) a robbery committed by Duke, Archie and Debbi.
• In the party scene at a local bar where we see the Repo Men's wives, several of the wives are played by drag queens.
• The destination placard on the bus Otto takes to his parents reads Edge City and the movie's production company is called Edge City Productions Edge city is a recurring theme in Tom Wolfe's novel The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

Just for the record The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test isn't a novel. Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The maps shown in the opening credits are in geographic sequence, presumably showing the path of the car driven by J. Frank Parnell. The maps begin in Los Alamos, New Mexico (the site of an actual U.S. Government research facility) and travel westward to a spot outside of Needles, California.
• In the popular PlayStation Portable title: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories which takes place in the year 1984, there is a business racket in which you can invest in titled: "Loan Sharking Ventures." The likeness of the venture, its mission names, and objectives are a direct parody/homage of the film itself. As well, at the point in which you achieve "High Roller" status (through upgrades or purchase) for that particular business, an outfit (entitled: "Repo Man Outfit") is rewarded to you for use in your safe house—which features a spot-on likeness to Emilio Estevez's attire later on in the film.
• American Laundromat Records has announced plans to release a tribute CD featuring some of their favorite bands covering tunes from the original motion picture soundtrack. A 2008 release date is scheduled.
• Californian rock band The Aquabats are admitted fans of the movie; a sample of dialogue from the film is featured in their tribute song, 'CD Repo Man', and the quote "Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody's dead" is included in the lyrics to the song 'Chemical Bomb'. In addition, they've been known to play clips of the film, among other movies, during their live shows.
• In addition, Busdriver makes use of a speech from the movie in his album Imaginary Places.
• In The Simpsons episode 2, season 7 titled "Radioactive Man" Bart speaks to a man who is clearly a parody of Miller (Tracey Walter).
• Japanese rock band "Melt Banana" use a short, sped-up sample from an innocuous part of the film at about 1 hour and 9 minutes into it, at the beginning of their album "Teeny Shiny." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblinpaste (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• I think this movie might provide one of the first documented uses of the word, "phat" -- apparently 1980s white slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.22.203 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved here for posterity, I guess. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a great way to ruin an article and dissuade good contributers from even bothering. I keep hearing how Wikipedia keeps slowly disentigrating and good contributers get tired of the struggle and give up, then leave forever. Now I see it for myself here. Way to go... Cowicide (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing this trivia again. Trivia does not make a great article, that is why it is discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As another response, after looking on your talk page, I see that while in discussion with another editor, you referenced may Wikipedia guidlines and policies. So why don't you stop being a hypocrit, and stop inserting the trivia here. Again, trivia does not make a great article, otherwise it wouldn't be a guideline not to do so, even further the article is fine without that huge pointless section.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 07:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop being a "hypocrit" when you do. You leave the section "Recurring themes and references" which is exactly what I had up there & called it until someone changed the title to "trivia" and now, for some reason, you feel it's your mission in life to ruin the good, hard work of your fellow wikipedians. It's a MOVIE, not an article on George Bush's brother. Here, you want a fruitless, trivial mission in your life? GO HERE, they desperately need you. Go for it trooper, save them from themselves. Cowicide (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"As another response". BTW, Lurking on my talk page, taking me out of context, insulting me and calling me names will only result in you getting a dick slap across your face. Be civil with your fellow wikipedians or expect things to go south for you. Cowicide (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't exactly know that was trivia, oh, and please tell me where I insulted you, because I did no such thing. Second of all, 'all the great work of wikipedians', if you bothered to check the history, was a bunch of anon IPs. Again, please read the guidelines. This article is fine enough without a huge unsorted trivia list. You can insert the trivia into the body text. That is fine, a huge unsorted list isn't. — Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't see where you were insulting, then you are either oblivious to your own actions or a liar. I consider your vindictive slash and burn of this article where you outright deleted other's work to be vandalism. Instead of using moderation and policy, you are obviously set on using your edits as "revenge". At this point, we need a moderator to come in and resolve this. Are people who don't get an account with Wikipedia, not wikipedians even if they contribute here? So, what would you call them? Your elitist attitude and blanking of entire sections without consensus is poisonous to Wikipedia and needs to stop. At this point, cease and desist and let's let impartial moderation take it from here, quit being a vindictive vandal. Cowicide (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your edit summery: What? Vandal set on revenge? Where did this come from? Please read WP Guidelines, along with the article itself. As you can see, it is no where near a stub, and the section is a useless collection of information, which breaks what What wikipedia is not. If you like it so much, please re-introduce the trivia, not as a huge glaring list, but as small insertions in the body text of the article, such as the plot. Also, please read WP:CIVIL, as your edit summeries are mis-leading.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I honsetly have no idea where you're getting this revenge idea. This is not personal, the article simply looks bad with a huge glaring list. You however seem to be taking it peronsonally. Why do you ignore my suggestion to insert the trivia into the article body text? In regards to the anon IPs, they were just passing through the article and listing one or two things they noticed. There is no elitist atitude, and there already is consensus that huge unsorted trivia sections make good articles look bad. In regards to the insult, I never insulted you, I said you weren't following your own rules, as stated, you in the past cited guildlines and polices in response to another editor, but now you are going against such. Now you just insulted me, by calling me stupid(oblivious).— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically going to ignore most of your last entry here where you are going against your word on MY talk page where you acted like we had reached an agreement, then now turned around and blanked the article AGAIN here in the meantime. Note that I didn't call you a liar, you just called yourself one. And, now that I see how you work by saying untruths about me, I see that you were ironically honest about yourself. For example you say above, "... Why do you ignore my suggestion to insert the trivia into the article body text?..." when you know damn well I agreed to that with you on my talk page and even said I'd work on that with you when I got some time. All anyone has to do is read my talk page to see how two-faced you are being. (Do NOT go and BLANK my talk page like you've done here or you'll be banned for vandalism, BTW)

Daedalus, since you went against your word on my talk page, I have a proposition for you. Let's change the name from Trivia, etc. to "Notable Motifs". Observe that section in the Pulp Fiction article here. There you'll see er, "references" found throughout the movie, etc. Everything from a combination code on a suitcase to how the film features scenes of bathrooms and toilets. This section in the Pulp Fiction article is just the tip of the iceberg in references, trivia, etc. found throughout the article.

I am NOT criticizing the Pulp Fiction article, but if you honestly want to make it your mission to clean up Wikipedia movie entries... based on your previous statements, I would think you would focus just as much effort or more deleting sections of the Pulp Fiction article. (Which I think would ruin the article as it has done here)

I have a feeling that due to the massive popularity of Pulp Fiction, you would find a swift and expansive attack against your efforts coming from many directions and you would end up crawling away with your tail between your legs. Unlike Pulp Fiction, Repo Man has a far more esoteric appeal and didn't come anywhere near the mainstream success of Pulp. But, is that how wikipedia works in your eyes? If a film garners more financial mainstream success you can "look the other way" when its article involves itself in tons of references, trivia, etc.? But, a lesser known work such as Repo Man should be ripped of its "Notable Motifs" off-hand?

The funny thing is, you initially launched an unprovoked insult calling me a hypocrite. With that in mind, I'd like to see you launch the same attack on the Pulp Fiction article (delete entire sections, etc. without consensus, etc.). Let's see how that goes, learn from that experience, and THEN come back here and lets apply a far more peer reviewed strategy for "making this article better" based on your "trial by fire" consensus experience at the Pulp Fiction article. That way you can experience a wide variety of opinions on the matter, reach true consensus and apply it just the same here. In the meantime, I've changed the title here to "Notable Motifs". When you get rid of "Notable Motifs", etc. at Pulp Fiction (and it sticks with consensus) I'll welcome you to come back here and remove the Repo Man "Notable Motifs" based on your experience there with far more input from the community instead of your current rogue, lone sherrif approach you're trying here. Good luck with that and don't forget your flame resistant underwear. Cowicide (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, let me make it easy for you. Please refer to the following evidence that my message on your talk page was an hour after the blanking. And you yourself need to stop with the insults, when I used the word hypocrite, I was not using it in an insulting way, or with the idea of insulting you as I would when others call others stupid or cowardly. I'm sorry for using it if it insulted you, and I take it back, now will you take back your false claims of me going back on my word as stated by this evidence, and your insult of cowardace? I took a step back and stopped so I could help, and this is how you treat me? First diff as you may note, takes place at 4/27/08 16:23. Second diff as you may also note, takes place at 4/27/08 17:29. At least an hour after my blanking of the Repo Man section. So please understand, I mean what I say in my first message on your talk page. Go on, post this one there too.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what's funny. The Pulp fiction article is actually well done, and it does something this article doesn't do. It doesn't violoate any policies. Another user called to my attention a little policy called No Original Research. This section violates that policy, and I therefore challenge it. The Pulp fiction article is perfectly fine, as it has cited sources. There are no sources here. I, like I stated earlier, challenge this section. If sources cannot be found within 3 days, I shall delete it. It will not be vandalism, as it clearly violates no original research.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like in the Pulp Fiction article (and all other Movie articles in Wikipedia for that matter), many of the "sources" here are from the movie itself. For example, in the Pulp fiction article we have:

" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "

The source for that info is, yes.... from the movie. Original research, right? LOL

So, before you blank a huge part of this article again without consensus, be sure to go through and blank every part within the Pulp Fiction article that is sourced from the movie itself. I mean, after all... this is about "policy", right?... and, therefore... you challenge it, right? (Nevermind that they'll ban you if you start an edit war with them and you'll have to tuck tail and run)

BTW, if this content is so horrible and "against policy" then why on earth did you give your word to incorporate it into the article? You are not making sense. Are you just trying to aggravate the situation now by breaking your word?

Also, since we are on the subject of being a stickler on "policy", you do NOT have consensus for deleting this content; there is a very obvious dispute here. Like I've already said before, it's time for this to head to dispute resolution if you won't at least compromise with me.

The content will stay up as is since I already compromised with you and changed the title to "Notable Motifs" just as it is called in the "well done" (in your words) Pulp Fiction article. It will stay up until we go through the proper dispute resolution channels, otherwise you are blatantly breaking wikipedia policy yourself and knowingly stoking an edit war which is a disruptive, serious offense. The other choice, of course, is that you keep you word and we work on this together to better the article as you have already agreed upon.

Otherwise, let's get this dispute resolved properly with a disinterested third party. Observe. Remember, it was you who first threw insults alongside blanking a huge section of the article (that was built up over the course of years by many contributers) in one fell, insulting swoop. Despite your elitist feelings about the irrelevance of the other contributers, they are still people that spent their time trying to better wikipedia... are you? It just seems from the very start that it's been more of a chip on your shoulder than anything else.

If you came in here and voiced your opinions on the article within the article's talk page (without blanking and insults to boot) and tried to reach consensus before editing, don't you think this might have gone down a very different path for you? I hope you'll learn from this experience and next time you feel the urge to act such a way, you'll think twice. Wikipedia will be the better for it.

So, it's up to you... will making all these contributers feel like their time and effort spent at Wikipedia is worthless REALLY help the Wikipedia project as a whole? You weren't from the start, but now it's not too late to finally show them all some consideration (and maybe even some overdue respect) and incorporate the bests parts into the article as you, once again, already gave your word to do. Hopefully, the Wikipedia contributers (and your word) still means something to you. Cowicide (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop bringing up things that have already been solved, first, I already apologized for insulting you once, and when I was using the word, I was not using it as an insult. Second, there was only one insult by me, while the rest were by you. Third, why have you not looked at the diffs, and why do you continue to be incivil?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was going down a good path until you accused me of two-faced deceptions, a claim that was actually baseless.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And finally, the Pulp fiction article is again fine. As you can see, there are sources cited for the references, and the sources do not cite the movie, but instead 3rd party publications. My challenge stays.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your challenge? To continue to act hostile like you did from the very beginning? For you to lose more face from going against your word to work on this article instead of blanking it? For you to start an edit war? For you to ignore nearly every point I've made even after addressing yours? For you to ignore the fact that I made a compromise and you've gone against your word? Is your challenge to ignore policy and instead of going towards dispute resolution and consensus, you head straight into conflict (yet again) with (yet another) blanking of this article that will only increase the hostile tone you set forth from the beginning with your actions and words from the get-go? LOL. I noticed that you ignored the fact that the Pulp Fiction article (like every other Movie article) is laced with sources, quotes, etc. derived from the movie itself. Nice try. But the fact remains. Welp, go ahead and delete everybody's work here and try to get your "final" revenge. Nevermind what's good for Wikipedia. Attempt to satisfy your desperate need for control in life. Go ahead, despite my pleas, now stalk and harass me on my talk page some more too while you are at it. Cowicide (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read anything I've said? Seems you've also ignored me. Back to the article for a bit. I read through Pulp fiction, and it is indeed laced with sources, not refering to the movie, but to publications talking about the movie. To your arguement, I've already provided diffs proving you wrong, so how about you provide the appropriate diffs for your false claims. You can't just say something and it will be true. That is why I provided evidence in the form of diffs, citing that I in fact blanked the section an hour before I made the comment to your talk page. Prove me wrong. You attacked after that, after you thought that I lied, which I did not. Would you look at the diffs already and take a step back?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, have you read anything I've said?

REPEAT:

" ... Jules ritually recites what he describes as a biblical passage, Ezekiel 25:17, before he executes someone. We hear the passage three times—in the introductory sequence in which Jules and Vincent reclaim Marsellus's briefcase from the doomed Brett; that same recitation a second time, at the beginning of "The Bonnie Situation", which overlaps the end of the earlier sequence; and in the epilogue at the diner. ... "

The source for that info is, yes.... from the Pulp Fiction movie. If you bother to look, you'll find many other examples of this in that article that do NOT come from outside publications. It was in the movie, yo. That's the source.

I really want to stay focused on the article... but, Ok, to shut you up about it, I'll talk about... "us"... LOL

Look at the diffs! Look at the diffs!! They still show that you said one thing and did another. Started off with a nice blanking and insult, then started flipping out and blanking it again. They also show that you gave your word that you would work with me (stop this blanking crap) to keep the content and intersperse it throughout the article, but then you turned around and blanked it (yet again)... all this after deleting it as soon as you marched in here and now here you are threaten to do so (yet again) ... That's a lot of blanking in such a short amount of time for someone who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder and claims to be civil from the get-go (which they weren't) and understands policy (hint: 3 revert rule, buddy). The diffs also show where you started screwing with me on my talk page and I warned you that it was confusing to break up the same conversation between this page and the talk page. And now look at the consequences... But did you read anything I said? No, and you continue to stalk and harass me on my talk page up to now.

Please, I ask you again... can we just focus on the article? If you have issues with "us" then now you have your nice RFC page you made on me to handle that. Just drop it here and let's focus on making this article better! Believe me, you aren't going to get anywhere stalking me on my talk page after the way you've acted. Cowicide (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to quote them for you, because you seem to totally miss the fact that the edits are an hour apart, specifically, I blank the section BEFORE I post the message on your talk page. So again. Look at the diffs. Secondly, it takes 2 to 3RR. You didn't exactly explain where the consensus was that a large section of OR was allowed on WP. I already did, it is a policy. No original research. I am quite familiar with WP policies, are you? You've already violated three, and I have one, which was WP 3RR. Yes, I insulted you, by your judgement, once. You however did so to me many times. Yes, I want to fix this article as much as you do, even if it is for different reasons, but I want to get this over with first, and I want to know why it seems you have it out for me so much that you completely disregard obivious facts.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 07:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, one more point for you. The reason why I went back on what I said is called order of events. At the time I stated I would help you, note:there were no promises, so the "going back on my word" bit was misinformation, I was going to help you. However, a while later, after reading a friend's talk page in response to my question to him, I noticed that the section violated a WP policy, a policy I have stated many times here, and one you think doesn't apply here. Good thing there's a second editor here that agrees we me and the facts at hand. Pulp fiction cites a news source for it's references. This section cites none, and my challenge stays. You like this section so much? Source it.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 07:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a serious suggestion for improving the article...remove the trivia section entirely, then add any really worthwhile information as text in the body of the article. As it stands now it appears to be largely unsourced OR. Very specifically, the first item (Plate/Shrimp) is completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The second item is OR, unless it's been published by a reliable source (otherwise you're drawing a conclusion yourself). As mentioned by another editor, WP has a specific guideline regarding trivia sections (even when they're called 'motifs'), and good reasons for it. The specifics are available here. Doc Tropics 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Regardless of the merits of including what's being called trivia, it's all original research, so far as I can tell. Before worrying about its inclusion, citations from reliable sources would need to be found to verify it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, please refer to the Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines located in the section I've created below. I have begun the process of working on the content from there with a Sandbox, etc. As far as those who have engaged in blanking or moving it all to the talk page, that goes against Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines. I'm going to work on bettering this article and having it closer conform to guidelines in a process that is in line with Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines (no blanking or moving to talk page). Thank you for your opinion. Cowicide (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trivia section discussion / Resolution

Seeing that the subject above is scattered all over the place with personal issues and breaks with guidelines. I want to start fresh with a focus on the article and the article ONLY in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which state "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." If this section degenerates into personal issues against Talk page guidelines, I will contact administrators to come in and take care of the problem.

On that note, here is my proposal in accordance with Wikipedia:Trivia sections Guidelines where it specifically states:

• This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

Considering this guideline... The matter is not one of whether or not anyone can continue to violate the guidelines and continue blanking the entire section or move it all to the talk page again; it's a matter of going through and making the information more suitable for a better article.

Therefore, at this point I have copied the list to this sandbox and will ask you all to begin working with me on massaging the content to better conform to Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines. For one, I've found a source for much of the content HERE and will apply it accordingly. I've also found numerous other sources that can be applied throughout, very similar to how the Pulp Fiction article is structured which I believe we've reached some consensus is an example of a good article. Anyway, I'll now focus my attention on the Sandbox and it's talk page to improve Repo Man's "Notable Motifs" section. Please join me there if you would like to help. Everyone is welcome, including anyone I've had disputes with. Or, if you prefer, please copy the content to your own Sandbox and we can work independently and merge them together on a final Sandbox with proper consensus. Cowicide (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cowicide on this. While trivia sections are to be avoided, WP guidelines do not call for existing trivia sections to be deleted. Rather, the information should be incorporated into the text of the article. Further, a "recurring themes" section is not the same as a trivia section and such sections are present unchallenged in |multiple WP articles The inclusion in the article of the information in the trivia section that falls under the "recurring themes" umbrella should be uncontroversial. The original research claim has more merit, those items that are not common knowledge should cite a source or be removed. Some of the entries seem frivolous and I would suggest they be deleted, for example:

* Miller (Tracey Walter), a scruffy, oddball mechanic working for Helping Hand, refuses to learn to drive, explaining that the "more you drive, the less intelligent you are."

• In the scene where Otto asks his parents if he can have his college money now, they are smoking pot while watching a televangelist.
• In the end credits, everyone is credited by their character name. Some of the characters are so obscure, it is impossible to tell who they are.
• When Otto and Bud race the Rodriguez Brothers in the river bed, there is one scene where the scientist, J. Frank Parnell, is actually driving the car.
• In the scene where Otto repossesses a car from Bruce Ipezen at the laundromat, a dead body can be seen on the floor in the background.
• As Bud and Otto pursue repossession opportunities throughout the seedier parts of Los Angeles their path seems to continually follow or intersect with that of Otto's punk friends. On more than one occasion, Bud and Otto visit a convenience store just after (or during) a robbery committed by Duke, Archie and Debbi.

Other thoughts? --Osbojos (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with trivia, but this entire section seems like minutiae and overkill. I would say that if there's evidence of recurring motifs, that should have it's own section. The rest of it appears to be unsourced and original research. Redrocket (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Osbojos! Yeah, I think I'd just be fooling myself if I thought this list didn't need some serious pruning and those are perfect examples you have there. Redrocket, I started looking at some of the ones I added myself (i.e., about the license plate) and see that there's some "stretches" going on there. Dædαlus is right on the mark when he says the Pulp Fiction article is really strong and I'd love to see this article get closer to that quality. I'm also wondering how you and others here feel about using the script itself as a source (where I linked above).... would that elevate it above original research or would that be the very definition of it. I couldn't find anywhere that says you shouldn't source from a movie script, but I'm still uncertain about it. Cowicide (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the script, it would provide details such as dialog and events, but not any relevance or subtext for those events. For example, the script would confirm "In the scene where Otto asks his parents if he can have his college money now, they are smoking pot while watching a televangelist." However, it doesn't provide any specific notability for that event. Redrocket (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(I've never participated in these discussions before, so forgive me in advance should I offend.) I agree with Redrocket and Cowicide. In my opinion, the "Notable Motifs" section should not be deleted, but included in the article since the article for the film "Pulp Fiction" has such a section that (to the best of my knowledge) hasn't been considered for deletion. Those who have put considerable time and effort into this are truly fans of this film (I actually saw it at a theater, seven times, when it was first released). At least it could be cleaned up and not simply filled with "Hey look at that" descriptions, but listing items relevant to the film and its cultural impact. Perhaps these could be incorporated into the description of the film's plot itself? All I'm saying is let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here! Unidyne (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to out indent for a second here. I will help where I can, if I can. Otherwise, I suck at writing. I always have. Sure, multiple choice, sure, small paragraphs where I express my thought. Prompts kill me. I don't believe I would be able to contribute in a good way to this article besides offering my opinions, or cleaning up grammatical errors, that word that has to do with periods and commas that I can't remember the spelling of.. you get the idea.

I'll help if I can, but don't expect too much from me.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 07:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very encouraging to see everybody talking together and exchanging ideas. Thanks to everybody who's come to the table. Probably the next step to take would be for someone to make a couple of edits to the trivia section, knock a few out, and let's continue the discussion. Sound good to everyone? Redrocket (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a plan! Cowicide (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambig pages and redirects

It's hard to dispute that Repo Man the movie is by far the most prominent thing known by that name. So the current disambig structure seems wrong - Repo Man should be this page, and should use Template:otheruses. How come it is this way? — ciphergoth 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see the point of the disambig as it is. --beefyt (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

Hello, I found this article with a lot of info about the making of the film. http://io9.com/the-weirdest-things-you-never-knew-about-the-making-of-1673079559

I doubt we can use this actual article as a source, but if we can find other sources for what's in the article do you think maybe you guys can help me incorporate it into the article? BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)